Filed: Jun. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [5] AS MOOT DAVID R. GRAND, District Judge. On March 12, 2013, plaintiff Rosevelt McCormick commenced the instant case against Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") and several unnamed registered nurses, alleging `violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On April 12, 2013, the Court clerk sent a summons to McCormick for service on defendant CMS, along with a copy of the complaint. On April 19, 2013, McCormick
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [5] AS MOOT DAVID R. GRAND, District Judge. On March 12, 2013, plaintiff Rosevelt McCormick commenced the instant case against Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") and several unnamed registered nurses, alleging `violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On April 12, 2013, the Court clerk sent a summons to McCormick for service on defendant CMS, along with a copy of the complaint. On April 19, 2013, McCormick f..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [5] AS MOOT
DAVID R. GRAND, District Judge.
On March 12, 2013, plaintiff Rosevelt McCormick commenced the instant case against Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") and several unnamed registered nurses, alleging `violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On April 12, 2013, the Court clerk sent a summons to McCormick for service on defendant CMS, along with a copy of the complaint. On April 19, 2013, McCormick filed a certificate of service, stating that the defendant was "personally served" "by U.S. Postal Service." [3]. However, it was determined that McCormick actually mailed the summons and complaint to the Michigan Department of Corrections, not CMS, a fact brought to McCormick's attention on June 4, 2013, when he was ordered to "properly serve" the proper defendant in order to proceed with his claim. [6]. Prior to that order's entry, McCormick had filed a motion for summary judgment against all defendants which is presently before the Court. [5].
On June 12, 2013, McCormick moved this court for an order permitting him to amend his complaint to substitute Corizon Health Care ("Corizon") for CMS as the proper institutional defendant, and to amend the amount of damages requested to $50,000. [Id.] On June 28, 2013, the Court granted that motion. [11].
Because McCormick has been granted permission to amend his original complaint, that pleading, upon which his instant motion for summary judgment is based, is no longer in effect. See B&H Med. LLC, v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 268 n. 8 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that amended complaint supersedes all previous complaints and renders them "a nullity."). Thus, his motion for summary judgment on that complaint should be denied as moot. Furthermore, as it appears none of the proper defendants have yet been served, McCormick's motion for summary judgment is not ripe for consideration at this time.
For the foregoing reasons the court RECOMMENDS DENYING McCormick's Motion for Summary Judgment [5] as moot.
